Search results for query: *

I am very glad to see the modifications to armor. It's something I had been waiting for since the release of the game. Though I am wondering something.

At first glance, the current armor formula seems to be balanced for multiplayer, which is why it is detrimental to the single-player experience. However, trying to make a formula that fits both can create some issues.

- If armor is too protective, it would skew multiplayer balance, and need a lot of work to rebalance everything. It would make all players pick only heavily armored units.

- If we seek a middle-ground ; and end up make armor not protective enough for SP, then the singleplayer experience will still be harmed albeit less, and feedback could keep coming telling it's "not enough".

I think what makes the most sense is to separate both formulas. But it seems like a difficult issue to tackle. Any solutions? Or does that seem like a non-issue and am I overthinking things?

D0c1 said:

there have been many threads about this subject. the official response was that they're looking into it.

Click to expand...

I looked and made a search before posting this. I found a few discussions about armor feeling worthless, and the hit-to-kill ratio but they are under "General Discussions". I wanted to bring this issue into suggestions, not just provide feedback but suggest solutions as well. I hadn't found any under Suggestions that was recent enough to appear.

At least, it's good that they're looking into it.

(EDIT : After looking in-depth, there is this one from 2020, that was burried a bit far into the search pages - apparently forwarded to the devs back in 2020... It's been quite a while - despite it being a Top Activity Thread)

SupaNinjaMan said:

This took a lot longer to find than I thought it would, to be honest.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much!

theRealBassist said:

I think those are now handled in C++. In the spitems.xml there only lists a [body part]_armor value. I imagine there is a calculation somewhere in the dlls that controls how that value is used.

Click to expand...

Thanks
It's such an useful modifier to edit, it'd be a shame if it is less accessible than before :/

Coraline said:

Kissaki said:

I'm not sure if this bug is specific to Sugoroku, Gekokujo 3.1 or if it applies to Warband 1168 in general, but...

I was going to edit away the annoying one-handed thrust from horseback ability from all katana and tachi, as I don't like seeing my character charging up for a thrust when I meant for him to prepare to slash - this is only an annoyance from horseback. But I noticed that in the item editor, this particular box was not ticked anyway. I tried to tick it and see if that had any change - nope. I un-ticked it again, and checked again - still thrusting. It seems the item editor's box for one-handed thrust horseback does not respond. I checked with Gekokujo 3.0 for Warband 1158 (no Sugoroku), and there the mounted thrust is gone, just like the item editor says it is. So it is not Gekokujo 3.0, and it is not Warband 1158.

Is this a known issue?

Click to expand...

Editor isn't 100% perfect?  I noticed similar problems when trying to fix the short large bladed spears on Gekokujo long ago.  Trial/error and some how I got them working right and I honestly never remembered how.  But Gekokujo has since been updated a number of times since then and I long forgot what I did to get them working.  I was trying to add "Swing" animations on horse back for a few specific spear types, ie ones specifically designed for thrusting/slashing.

Click to expand...

Odd, indeed.
So, neither one handed, nor two handed trust are ticked ?
Try removing the two handed trust, maybe it'll affect the one handed on horseback.
Not to keep it that way, removing two handed trust would be quite a loss. Still, to know if the bug comes from there.

Coraline said:

Interesting part about accuracy.  Accuracy wise muskets are not as bad as history has actually presented them.  The Prussians some time in the 1700s if I recall did a volley test with around 300-500 men firing in mass I forgot the exact number.  But they tested and found at the normal engagement range of around 100 yards most of the shots fired would hit dummy targets, very few targets were not hit after a mass volley.  But for some strange reason in battlefield conditions that would be reduced dramatically, when I say dramatically, I mean dramatically.  Seems soldiers intentionally at the time avoid actually shooting someone, and intentionally missed often, giving way for a lot of mythology around muskets effectiveness.  At close ranges most shots will hit the target you aim at, if you actually try to aim/hit them to begin with.  So in that respect muskets accuracy wise on this game seem relatively accurate, at close ranges a mass volley from the matchlock muskets on here are devastating, from long range it's like trying to hit a flee with grain of salt from 1000 yards though. 

(...)

Kind of like when you hear stories during WWI which soldiers who had a perfect chance to kill the enemy didn't kill the enemy.  Instead would shout, throw rocks do anything to scare them off even if their rifles were an arms reach away.  xD

Click to expand...

Kind of reminds me of one of the recent videos of Lindybeige  I was about to make the same points.
That sort of innacuracy was even common place up to the world wars, somehow. Finally a good part of human nature, not killing your ennemies when you don't feel directly threatened. 

--

Samurai were an interesting bunch indeed, up until the Ashigaru became commonplace and trained to group tactics, they were quite individualistic and often favore duels.

And, well, they were well armored enough, PPQ_Purple. Killing someone in heavy armor is quite difficult, even with the weakpoints, the bushi will know those of his armor and protect them in priority.

Kissaki said:

Goutlard said:

Kissaki said:

1. The cutting power of the naginata is significantly less than that of a sword. I still gave it a good bit more in cutting damage than katana and tachi, however, to balance out the fact that it is too easy for someone with a shorter weapon to close distance - which eliminates one of the main advantages of a long weapon.

Click to expand...

I'd definitively disagree with the idea that Naginata cuts "significantly" worse than a sword. Rather, my (limited-ish) cutting experience, and Kendo/Kenjutsu practice points toward the contrary in each and every possible way :

- The naginata has more leverage (due to longer hilt, unlike the short tsuka of the swords); which allows to make stronger cuts using less strenght, and leverage instead. Cutting is thus easier.

- The naginata has a forward balance, more so than most blades. The heaviest part being at the tip, it does add in weight to the strikes, and makes cutting much better.

Click to expand...

That is the intuitive reasoning, yes - but it does not work like that in practice. If you look at tameshigiri with naginata, they never perform as well as swords. The added leverage is good for the initial impact, but cutting is about more than that - it's not a club. Much of the force is wasted into the shaft itself, and does not go through the blade (except in a thrust). You can try this for yourself if you have a short and a long stick. It is easier to press hard downwards with the short stick. If you observe that the long stick bends, that is because the force from your hands are concentrated at the centre of percussion for the shaft, rather than the blade. All the force that goes into bending the shaft is force that does not go into the target, and all of that force would have gone into the target with the short stick.

Edge alignment is also significantly easier - and more forgiving - with the blade close to your hand.

Why, if the naginata was superior, did we even bother using the katana ?

Click to expand...

No one said it was. But naginata is longer than katana, which gives it certain advantages - and disadvantages.

But, in all honesty, the naginata remains to my opinion cleary superior to the katana.

Click to expand...

I never said anything of superiority at all. I was simply addressing the cutting prowess, and in Gekokujo I nerfed the naginata in that regard, but still gave it more than it should to compensate for the range benefits it ought to, but doesn't have in the game.

Click to expand...

(For the Nagianta superior part - Only wrote it to avoid the birth of some misconceptions amongst random readers  )

Interesting point,  I suppose some force would indeed be lost in the shaft. So that point does make sense.
Indeed on the sword one of the centers of percussion is on the monouchi, the part favored for cutting. I don't know where the centers of percussion are on the naginata.

Hasuji (edge alignement) is easier with a Katana, but not because the blade is closer to the hand, I would argue, but because of the shape of the Tsuka. Unlike nagamaki, many naginata have round hilts, which makes feeling the edge direction somewhat difficult.

However, I'd still argue that slashing is easier with a Naginata. 
But I won't argue too much, unlike with Katana, I never did cut with Naginata. Only some kata and sparring.

SCV Arius said:

From what I've read about the Tachi, and comparisons to the Katana, along with their roles, I noticed that the Tachi is portrayed as being a one-handed weapon instead of being a two-handed one, due to a shorter grip and being a cavalryman's weapon like a sabre.

Is it possible to modify the current ones in-game to be purely one-handed weapons?

Click to expand...

You can use either katana or tachi in morote (two handed) or katate (one handed) form.
Both are somewhat heavy compared to one handed blades, so one handed form means loosing speed and control, but having a free hand.
Having it only one handed, however, would make no sense.

Even more so, Kenjutsu uses tachi and katana in the exact same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAYLxqxFyIE

This kata called Itsutsu no tachi (First of the Tachi), made with bokuto in this case, which is closer to the katana.

Even further, the same blade could be called katana or tachi depending only on how it's mounted.

Kissaki said:

1. The cutting power of the naginata is significantly less than that of a sword. I still gave it a good bit more in cutting damage than katana and tachi, however, to balance out the fact that it is too easy for someone with a shorter weapon to close distance - which eliminates one of the main advantages of a long weapon.

Click to expand...

I'd definitively disagree with the idea that Naginata cuts "significantly" worse than a sword. Rather, my (limited-ish) cutting experience, and Kendo/Kenjutsu practice points toward the contrary in each and every possible way :

- The naginata has more leverage (due to longer hilt, unlike the short tsuka of the swords); which allows to make stronger cuts using less strenght, and leverage instead. Cutting is thus easier.

- The naginata has a forward balance, more so than most blades. The heaviest part being at the tip, it does add in weight to the strikes, and makes cutting much better.

Why, if the naginata was superior, did we even bother using the katana ?
For one, it's not that unbelievably better. You can strike and do some harm with any parts of the katana (thought the monouchi, last third of the blade makes the best slashes by far far. You can use oshigiri, draw cut and push cut with any part of the sword). You can do that too, with a naginata, but the hilt is much less dangerous. The ideal range of a katana is closer than that of a naginata. However, if the katana user gets closer, he isn't hindered by the sheer size of his weapon.

Kenshi never have to change the way they grip their weapon by necessity, unlike Atarashii-Naginata practitionners that change it constantly (even attempting the most basic techniques, they switch the position of the top and the bottom hand as to be able to strike). So it can be unweildy in situations.

But, in all honesty, the naginata remains to my opinion cleary superior to the katana.
The main reason it was not present at the side of every bushi was that it's kind of large, impractical to carry in everyday life.


Secondly, closing in on a longer weapon is easier said than done. It's far harder than most people think, especially in guards such as chudan with the point toward you.

The Testsubo is overpowered, especially since I use Doghotel's Brainy Bots, and it just gets through their blocks !
The Yari is really good too, you can just poke your opponents from afar.

However, the two I like the most to use are the Nodachi and the Tachi, just personnal preference. But the most similar ones to the weapons I have learnt to use IRL !

Congrats indeed ! Thought that's a most surprising rise. Wondering what's going on ! 

Ichimonji Hidetora said:

Anyway, it should be obvious that a sharasaya is not suitable for combat use just by looking at it, it's just a simple wooden hilt for holding the sword, so there is nothing to prevent your hand from slipping.

Click to expand...

And in actual combat the lack of a Tsuba would be really.. Really a disadvantage.
I mean, now that I have gotten used to it, many swings I catch end up on the tsuba, if I lacked one with the style I am using, I'd loose all of my fingers too easily.

Kharille said:

Just bought another one. 

http://www.ryansword.com/high-quality-clay-tempered-abrasive-japanese-samurai-shihozume-wakizashi-sword-ryan797-p-622.html


The last shirasaya I bought I cut my hand accidently grasping the blade.  Glad I still got two hands and ten fingers...

Click to expand...

Be most careful those used to be quite effective and dangerous sidearms ! 
I mean, even knowing and applying most closely the rules of safety practiced in Iaido and Battodo, I had one or two close calls that might have made me cut a bit into my hand.. Especially whilst sheating.

PPQ_Purple said:

Leas son of the day: 17th century gun line vs frontal infantry advance. Yea... 

(I just beat a 1000 strong army with 150 troops because I had all the companions and all trained up to shoot and they just walked into me slowly feeding them self into the meat grinder.)

Click to expand...

Cavalry charge as a meatshield to cover the infantry advance !
Poor horses thought.

RodriguesSting said:

I remember one guy once theorizing that the japanese didn't wear shields because they are a short people, and therefore, harder to hit with arrows, as the samurai warriors can stand closer to the ground.

Besides the obvious problems with this assumption, the greeks were one of the shortest people of Europe, and their favorite combat style consisted on using a large shield and a spear.

Regardless, if the japanese indeed fought mostly using the katana, not having second hand weapon (like a shield, or even a wakizashi or tanto) would be a disadvantage, as the blades are light and balanced enough to be easily wield with one hand. However, as it was discussed multiple times already, their main weapons were in fact polearms and bows, both of which require two hands to be fully effective.

That might have changed after the Tokugawa shogunate, but it wasn't like they were fighting any actual wars by then, and other than repressing rebels, combat was probably very ritualized, so practicality was the least of all concerns.

Click to expand...

A few points on your first part ;
The Katana was not a Samurai's main weapon. This role was mostly that of the Yari, the Yumi. The swords (Daito or Shoto) being drawn if disarmed, or drawn in close quarters, since you'd need to be quite foolish to try to swordfight with a Yumi ! Or to grapple with a spear, and so on.

The reason why the Katana is that often portrayed or seen alongside Samurai is that a spear was quite annoying to carry in everyday life, whilst a sword was most easy. The Katana stood as a symbol of the Samurai, it became more and more important after the reunification of Japan. But, never would a Samurai in his right mind go to a battlefield relying on the Katana alone if he could afford anything better !

They kind of had shields, in a way. Look at the O-Yoroi, and it's large shoulderplates named Sode.


It appears similar in a way to strap-shields, which is to link with the evolution of the Samurai. The earlier versions of them being horseback archers, this allowed them to retain a good protection whilst being able to use a bow proeficiently.

Over time, the sizes of the Sode became smaller, and smaller. This can be linked to two things ;
- Increase of the armor's quality ; the top-quality armors changing from Iron - Steel to hardened Steel, the weaker points covered in Kusari. In a fashion similar to the use of full plate reducing the size of shields, the sizes of the Sode decreased.
- Freedom of movement ; the large Sode were quite cumbersome. Not a problem if shooting arrows to an ennemy from afar, however it can be in close quarters. And, as the way Samurai fought changed, that changed too.

Can you upload screens ? I hadn't this issue personally, looks fine to me !

Sigmen said:

...

Click to expand...

Quite a lot of writing, I may prefer clearer, and more explicit words rather than excessive rambling. Let's go thought.

First, those Kenjutsu techniques are not based on "manuals", for they are taught in Kenjutsu Dojo, from generations of teachers to generations of teachers. Some changes in interpretation are true, but they are not to be rediscovered from scratch.

Generally, ancient European blades were indeed not as sharp as Japanese swords ; knowing how much effort was put into sharpening one blade in Japan.

However, the reason why they were not as sharp was simple ; whilst Japanese blades had hamon, differential hardening, and used that "pig iron" as so called by detractors on the edge generally ; that allowed great hardness and edge retention European swords did not ; therefore not as good at edge retention.

They were therefore not as sharpened (thought with with enough time you can sharpen any piece of metal to a great degree, however, if too soft it will loose the edge. If too hard, brittle).

However ; if Longswords were dependent on blunt trauma as you suggested. Then ; why not favor simply a hammer ? In fact, the very fact that Longswords are weighting on average between 1100g and 1800g which is definitively light compared to the weapon's size, and it's close-to-the-handle balance would not allow to deliver great blunt trauma therefore, for me, proving how much cutting was important.

The technique using a sword like a hammer was called Mordhau, and since the point of balance is near the handle allowed for much better blunt power. Exactly what makes sense, strike with the point of balance where the most power would be delivered.



Nice point in there ;

This is also due to the different use of those weapons. In medieval europe, where the norm was to capture knights to ransom them, killing weapons were not sword or even axes but dagues and dirk which were renowed as "infamous" weapons attributed to routier and throat-cutter.

Click to expand...

However, the main reason why knights did not die as much was not ineffective weapons, as much as the incredible protection their armors gave them against the most dangerous types of attacks (trust, cuts to the torso, stomach, neck, head ; all very well protected). The best armor's protection way outclassed weapon capacity.

For example just on the picture right up there. Give me the best sword you have, and train me in cutting for ten years. I can't, just, definitively, even then can't kill him with my best strike for I'd barely glance, or dent some steel and break my blade unless I strike a weak point. And weak points won't be generally to parts that would kill the person.

Even further, the difference in hardness between Japanese and European blades was not that important.
Generally, later-era European blades with spring steel had very durable blades, with negligibly worse cutting power, but the kind of blades that were very strong and resilient. And, older types of blades, whilst softer, were definitively great cutters and rather resistant ; since softer blades would bend rather than break.

Sigmen said:

In melee combat, japanese didn't really need hand shields at the contrary of other culture who relied on them because of the lack of efficiency of their own weapon, like europeans knights who's swords were more used like hammer than to actual cutting. They rely on swordstaff called "yari" which were as good for trust than for cut, and were more efficient than spears.

Click to expand...

One detail concerning which I may intervene.
European middle-ages swords are good cutting weapons too ; and falchions, scimitars may even outclass Japanese swords in cutting ability but loose in trusting ability compared to Katana/Tachi.

European swords were never blunt ; weren't used to hammer with the blade. Against armor, one would much rather use a warhammer mace or other blunt weapon, since it is great at delivering blunt force trauma through armor. If one is struck with a sword, they much rather used it this way ;



Halfswording, to trust into precise gaps of the armor.
Or held it by the blade, to strike with the guard where the center of balace was, therefore using it more like a mace with hooking ability.

By the way, halfswording unlike popular misconception also exists in Japanese swordsmanship. It is called "Soete Waza" favored in armored combat or close quarters (tsubazeriai) situations.

Tsubazeriai being this situation, where you keep hold of your tsuba against your opponents, making it so that if he attacks, he'll hit your swords guard, giving you relative safety from his sword. I say relative ; not speaking of kicks, grappling, or indeed of soete-waza that were dead efficient at this range.

Obvious to note that your sword won't stay that low usually, if the opponent tries for example a high cut (Shomen Uchi) you raise your sword as to meet the strike.

Generally, this range is too close to allow a cut that'd be immediately incapacitating as you'd strike with the strong of the blade. Hence part of the relative safety.



Example of Soete Tsuki.